The comment is distasteful to me because the underlying assumption is that any Senator will by lying under oath when questioned. I agree with that assumption, and I think the country is so very much the poorer for it.

Kerry married a rich woman and then dumped her for a super-rich woman. Then, he didn't pay his boat tax. Kerry ganged up with Jane Fonda and that lead, in my opinion, to more American deaths. The man is an ass.

No, because we live in the United States where the privileged get to break any law, custom or social convention they want to as long as they have the protection of progressive politics. (Gregory's Law)

This is tacky because McCain gets his panties in a wad about interrogation techniques. His making jokes about them makes him look senile and without gravitas.

The man knows what actual torture is, so I am a bit surprised he has such a lack of perspective on the issue. Still, if I had been tortured like he was, I might very well have lost my perspective as well.

It's definitely not OK for John McCain to joke about torture. Not because he is probably the only one with direct experience with it, nor because he was honorable about it, and a man of upstanding morals, but because he is a RINO. RINOs are not allowed to make any kind of funny joke that involves any serious topic.

It OK for people like Paul Ryan to make jokes like this. He is a real Republican, and everyone knows they are evil. Jokes like this simply speak for themselves, and everyone knows it is further proof they are evil people.

It is always OK for Democrats and liberals to make any kind of joke they want, but especially when they are not joking at all but being serious, like equating George Bush to Hitler, racist, etc., because these are Democrats, and we all know that means they are good people and can never do or say anything wrong.

I don't like either Kerry or McCain, but I give McCain a pass on his dark humor, he's been there. McCain's problem with humor is that he that he that he usually laughs at his own dark jokes, although that may be his way of indicating it's a joke.

By the way, torture does work. It always worked for Sister Mary Teresa in third grade.

In other news, Hillary is testifying, the dems are all performing cunnilingus on her. McCain is the only one asking serious questions.

It was in very poor taste. McCain is trying to ridicule those of us of us who don't think waterboarding, as it was used, was torture. He doesn't have much of a sense of humor. He is actually kind of a jerk. I did support him in 2000 but he was a better option than Bush.

Hate it when these polls force me to pick one of several good answers.

I am maybe a bit surprised if McCain and Kerry were that bosom of buddies. Most of the Vietnam vets I know, no matter how liberal they normally are, despise Kerry for how he publicly defamed them and their sacrifices during his fraudulent testimony before Congress. When it turned out that his testimony was false, that should have disqualified him for public office thereafter, and probably would have in most states. Of course, in MA, lying seems to be a prerequisite for that office, at least for Dems - think fauxahauntus Warren who is now the junior Senator, now sitting in the seat of their sainted drunken vehicular homicidalist, Teddy Kennedy, who had previously been expelled from Harvard for lying. Sure, politicians lie, but it appears that MA Dems have to be caught publicly doing so in order to gain Senate seats.

The whole subject is incredibly dull and pointless, a stale rehash of last decade's partisan political quarrels. It's just an excuse for douchebags like Freder to engage in moral grandstanding.

The torture issue has been solved by Obama, instead of capturing terrorists and interrogating them, we assassinate them with missiles fired from drones. And while the human rights brigade isn't crazy about drone-fired missiles, they're still a lot more worked up about waterboarding, even though it hasn't been done in years. Cause Bush is bad and Obama is awesome, I guess.

The problem with "torture" is that the word is almost meaningless. We need other words for lasting physical damage, physical pain without damage, and just getting scared. Waterboarding is just being scared. We scare the shit out of ourselves all the time, even desire and pay for the privilege.

How can you equate harmless, even if terrifying, treatment to having someone drill a few holes in you, or pull out fingernails. I can't see the intelligence of one word to cover both things?

"The person who is torturing wants a specific desired answered, true or not. Torture has little to do about finding the truth."

How on earth can you make these blanket statements? Surely there's at least some variation, among incidents of torture, as to motivation, direction of questioning, searching for independently verifiable but previously unknown information, etc...

Or F) because who is above being made the butt of a joke especially the French speaking, married to a 1%er, tax-dodging, liar before Congress, Purple Heart wound faking and geographically deficient John F. Kerry who also, by the way, also served in Viet Nam?

And whoever it is being done to doesn't die, and they've still got their fingers and toes when all is said and done.

There has been fraternity hazing that is worse.

Great, lets feel good about ourselves and not waterboard violent Islamists, and lets just keep on killing them with missiles. It makes no sense whatsoever to capture people if they're just going to be put in a cell and fed, not give up any information, and then get lawyered up for years and years for some kind of never ending legal back and forth. Not to mention all the rancor caused by people and countries wanting their release.

Great, lets feel good about ourselves and not waterboard violent Islamists, and lets just keep on killing them with missiles.

Based upon previous conversations with Mr. Cook, he believes killing terrorists with missiles is equally appalling. In point of fact, Mr. Cook doesn't believe they are terrorists at all, except for the United States of course.

"I never understood torture. The person who is torturing wants a specific desired answered, true or not"

we need to understand interrogation versus torture. Was interrogation used so that any answer true or not could be provided or did they want a true answer? There is such a thing as just inflicting pain on people (stuff that Sadaam would do) just to be mean but interrogation differs in that you are trying to get true information.But the better question is do you think soft interrogation works? Or any interrogation works, leaving aside "torture". If it does, then why wouldn't enhanced interrogations work along the same principle. It's not as if you use a more enhanced method that somehow you wouldnt verify the information that you would in a softer interrogation.

"I never understood torture. The person who is torturing wants a specific desired answered, true or not. Torture has little to do about finding the truth."

Lets say you are trying to break up and terrorist network. What you want is who people are, where they are and so forth. You act on the info and if it doesn't pan out, you get back to the source, pressuring him about what you think he misled you about. That goes back and forth.

You seem to only be thinking about extracting a confession to use to convict a person for something in the past. Think about an ongoing investigation where you're motivating someone to get it right, as they try to avoid more torture.

Madison Man said "The comment is distasteful to me because the underlying assumption is that any Senator will by lying under oath when questioned. I agree with that assumption, and I think the country is so very much the poorer for it."

Well murder is Obama's prefered manner of dealing with it. The liberals have nothing to say about it. Hollywood is silent. It is a-ok with the Maddows of the world because the Jug Eared Jesus can do no wrong.

Get used to it Cookie. Obama can do whatever he wants and get away with it.

Hell I wouldn't be surprised if he decided it was time for some drone strikes at gun shows or something.

How true, I sent a pledge to Menningers, gotta get rid of the weak links and pussies.

I never understood why the CIA never employed old school nuns for interrogation. A constant diet of rules on knuckles, yard sticks on one's ass and perfect curves and fastball chalkboard erasers thrown in one's face will make anyone talk. Plus, before they started to dress like bag ladies, their habits were intimidating and demanding of respect. WTF, it's a religious war in reality, regardless of what Obama says, we'll be at war for decades.

"The problem with 'torture' is that the word is almost meaningless. We need other words for lasting physical damage, physical pain without damage, and just getting scared."

Any of the above either is or can be torture, even just "scaring" someone. Torture is not just that which causes "lasting physical damage." In fact, a reality of torture is that it tends to leave psychological damage that is more long lasting than the physical damage.

It's really simple: a person (or nation) of conscience should not in any way abuse prisoners who are helpless to resist. Even so much as a punch or a slap to a bound prisoner's face or body should cause a person of conscience to feel revulsion, and a person of good conscience should refuse to participate or countenance even so minimal an assault on a helpless prisoner.

I hope they ask Kerry about where the Obama administration intends to cut defense spending. We know that they are going to cut it but it would be useful to know where.

I think some cuts would be warranted. Like all military aid to places like Egypt or Turkey or Europe for that matter. Bring the boys home from so many of these overseas missions that we don't need to be involved with anymore. Like Korea for example.

Lets say you are trying to break up and terrorist network. What you want is who people are, where they are and so forth. You act on the info and if it doesn't pan out, you get back to the source, pressuring him about what you think he misled you about. That goes back and forth.

I'm thinking of Little Bill from "The Unforgiven.":

“Now Ned, them whores are going to tell different lies than you. And when their lies ain’t the same as your lies... Well, I ain’t gonna hurt no woman. But I’m gonna hurt you. And not gentle like before... but bad.”

In other words, it's even better if you have more than one terrorist, because then you create a prisoner's dilemma.

So a marine unit on patrol comes under ambush or otherwise involved in a fire-fight and calls for air support. There's a UAV loitering over the area for that specific purpose. The controller directs the UAV weapons on to the enemy positions.

So you're saying any enemy killed during this action would have been murdered?

It's really simple: a person (or nation) of conscience should not in any way abuse prisoners who are helpless to resist. Even so much as a punch or a slap to a bound prisoner's face or body should cause a person of conscience to feel revulsion, and a person of good conscience should refuse to participate or countenance even so minimal an assault on a helpless prisoner.

That's probably correct. I was revolted when my dog harmed a chicken, not because he was hungry, but because it was fun. Poor terrified chickens. One dead, one hurt.

But guess what. There are people out there who want to kill innocent people. And they don't care if they hurt those helpless people.

So I say it is legitimate to use means to get information. I don't agree with those who say "It doesn't work." So you have a choice of two evils.

Hurt the helpless prisoner, who is presumably not innocent, or by your inability to act because it is revolting, allow innocent and helpless people to die?

"Based upon previous conversations with Mr. Cook, he believes killing terrorists with missiles is equally appalling."

What's appalling is that we kill people with drones without knowing who they even are, the government's claims notwithstanding. By our example, another nation--China or Russia, say--could blow up people in the streets of America and, whoever those killed may have been, declare themselves justified because they "killed a group of high-level terrorist leaders."

We don't want police opening fire willy nilly on public streets for fear innocents will be hit. Is it rational to assume shooting and blowing up a bomb at a person or persons on a public street--even assuming for argument's sake the person(s) targeted are terrorists--will not somehow also blow up innocents nearby? (Which they do...blow up innocents, that is.)

"In point of fact, Mr. Cook doesn't believe they are terrorists at all...."

No...we don't know who they are. We haven't established a credible or legal basis for killing "them," whoever "they" are.

It has already been published that the Obama administration has set a policy that in certain areas they simply define all men above a certain age to be "terrorists." How convenient for committing mass slaughter and keeping a clean conscience!

If the prisoner has not been proved under law to be guilty of crimes, he is presumed to be innocent. After all, most of those supposed "worst of the worst" who were held for years at Gitmo were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, of any terrorist activities or ties, as even our military has admitted, as our government has admitted in releasing most of them...after years of imprisonment.

"What Cookie is saying is drone attacks on terrorist targets not directly engaging US troops is in fact legalized murder. He is right."

Of course it's never that simple, or otherwise only soldiers would die in wars. As soon as you decide to protect any group of the population you are at war with, you have decided to either loose or make them the cannon fodder and shields putting them in even more danger. Or you can decide to just quit and go home, because you don't have the stomach to beat any evil determined enemy.

It's really simple: a person (or nation) of conscience should not in any way abuse prisoners who are helpless to resist. Even so much as a punch or a slap to a bound prisoner's face or body should cause a person of conscience to feel revulsion, and a person of good conscience should refuse to participate or countenance even so minimal an assault on a helpless prisoner.

You're right it is simple. On the other hand, if I had someone who had kidnapped my wife or child, I would not hesitate for a nano second to shame an Inquisator to find their whereabouts.

Listening to Kerry drone on is a form of water boarding. The refusal of the Democrats to prohibit prolonged statements from this man highlights their hypocrisy and double standards.....Can anyone name an anti-war activist whose zeal was diminished by the fact that the North Vietnamese used torture and murder to achieve their goals?

After all, most of those supposed "worst of the worst" who were held for years at Gitmo were entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, of any terrorist activities or ties, as even our military has admitted, as our government has admitted in releasing most of them...after years of imprisonment.

This might come as a shock to you but we release prisoners all the time who weren't innocent.

"So a marine unit on patrol comes under ambush or otherwise involved in a fire-fight and calls for air support. There's a UAV loitering over the area for that specific purpose. The controller directs the UAV weapons on to the enemy positions."

Most of our drone strikes have not been this sort of scenario at all. They have mostly been cases where anonymous figures on the ground in non-combat theaters "look suspicious" to unknown military personnel who are tracking them thousands of miles away, and so the order is given to blow them away. After the fact, without having American boots on the ground to collect the pieces of the bodies and identify who it was we just obliterated, it is announced that "high level Al Qaeda operatives were killed today" in such and such a place.

They have mostly been cases where anonymous figures on the ground in non-combat theaters "look suspicious" to unknown military personnel who are tracking them thousands of miles away, and so the order is given to blow them away.

It's probably the gaggle of men carrying AK-47s and RPGs that triggers that suspicious part.

Unless of course you have access to drone surveillance video we don't.

"This might come as a shock to you but we release prisoners all the time who weren't innocent."

But in this case they were.

How would you feel if you or yours were captured by a foreign country, thrown without due process into a prison and held for years--whether tortured or not--and them simply released abruptly, without apology or explanation or recompense?

Wouldn't you feel the other country acted abominably...criminally? Wouldn't it make you see them as villains...wouldn't you hate them?

Of course you would. You wouldn't see the other country as a (or the) bastion of freedom and justice in the world...because they wouldn't be.

Drone attacks in support of troops under fire is one thing. Drone attacks to assassinate "terrorist leaders" quite another.And it is not "legalized" just because "the president does it."

Another thing that I have not seen reflected on, here or elsewhere, is that there is a common understanding between warring nations that we do not use poison gas, and we do not assassinate each other's leaders, or there will be a tit for tat response.

Now, the idea of armed remote controlled aircraft is a simple one, and there is no need for anything that a tinkerer can't make in his garage or basement in order to stage an off-the-wall attack that can't be foreseen or protected against. Our government need to think about that. Turnabout is considered fair play the world over!

Scott"So you're saying any enemy killed during this action would have been murdered?"

Key word is "action", a battle. How different is a drone strike on a family different than a terrorist bomb under the bed of a US soldier on leave with his family back in the USA.

In the end, all this equivocation will be meaningless. We will appease ourselves in to extinction or the West will understand the existential threat and start carpet bombing whole villages. Something our "greatest generation" understood, break their fucking backs.

I think what Cookie is saying is correct. As is what Colonel Angus is saying as well. Same with Shouting Thomas.

Drone strikes are killing "civilians" who are targeted because they are carying guns and are deemed a threat to US interests and the liberals and lapdog media don't care because their boy Obama is doing it.

Hmmmmm. Civilians carrying guns who Obama thinks might be dangerous. Without any review or oversight. Or even hard questions.

"It's probably the gaggle of men carrying AK-47s and RPGs that triggers that suspicious part.

"Unless of course you have access to drone surveillance video we don't."

Or cameras...as the video released to Wikileaks by Bradley Manning showed. Of course, those men weren't killed by drone, but by live pilots in a helicopter.

Then they fired on other men who came to attend to the bodies of the men on the ground...including killing two children in a van, and then joking, "Hey, they shouldn't have brought children to a battlefield," (or words to that effect). Well, it hadn't been a battlefield until we fired rockets at a group of men walking openly in the street.

You have have no more idea than I who these people are we're killing, or whether they should be killed. If you accept or approve the murder from above of anonymous people on the ground who are not firing on our soldiers or noncombatants in the area, you are accepting and approving of murder.

it's the world our forefathers sought to erect in writing the Constitution and adding the Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights has been surrendered to the war on terror. Next, your Social Security and pensions will be surrendered to the finance sharks, then it will all be complete. All without firing a shot. That's why it's so funny hearing the ginned up rubes say Obama is coming for their guns. The government doesn't need them.

"We got two more categories of protected classes to be paraded through the presidency..."

But the protected class will grow to meet our needs in this area. The handicapped, and little people, vegans, fat people, and eventually pedophiles, and finally we get to white males, and then start over.

How would you feel if you or yours were captured by a foreign country, thrown without due process into a prison and held for years--whether tortured or not--and them simply released abruptly, without apology or explanation or recompense?

I'll tell you how I would feel. Mad as hell. I would be screwed up for life, and would never be able to be a US senator like John McCain did.

But so what. I could get cancer and die from it, and potentially in a horrifying way. Or I could become screwed up emotionally for life because some San Francisco Liberal Judge decided to integrate the San Francisco schools, and I and about 3 other whites went to a school of white hating blacks.

Unfortunately, you have to protect the clan US. If innocents get screwed along the way, all I can say is I hope it is minimized without adding additional risk to our own.

And if that doesn't do it for you, then all I can say is "You can't handle the truth."

Robert Cook said... What's appalling is that we kill people with drones without knowing who they even are, the government's claims notwithstanding.

Oh, we know who we are killing. We know this because someone else has had the fuck tortured out of him and has given up information. Been following the news lately? Constantly, we are informed of the importance of who has been killed by drone. How do you think that this administration knows that? The only reason that the media isn't upset about this is because it isn't being done by a Republican.

Interestingly, the world in 1939 was composed of three players: the British Empire, the Russian Empire, and the Japanese Empire and the target of them all which was controlling fragments of a Chinese Empire. Oh yes there was also a small isolationist country called The United States and a German Third Reich raised up again to a power player by Hitler.

Five years later only the American Empire and the Russian Empire were the power players left standing.

Those two detented or cold warred between themselves forty years until Reagin's wisdom won and there was only one power player left.

Since then, resolving American Hegemony in favor of a world federation has been the goal of the Russian Empire, the Chinese Empire and an alliance of German French and British and Italians called the EU. Kerry happens to think that is in America's interest.

McCain comes from a family of traditional American Military leaders that for three generations has opposed everything Kerry stands for.

We are murdering civilians in other countries with drone attacks because we think they are terrorists. Think.

These are not armies behind defenses when we have declared war like that idiot Cedarford cites. Tell the truth. You can think it is a good thing or a bad thing. But call it what it is.

Personally I don't care if they blow up every towelhead and camel jockey in the world. But that doesn't change the fact that it is legalized murder that is being ignored by the libs and the lapdog media because the Jug Eared Jesus is doing it.

Baron Zemo said...I don't know Cedarford. Dropping a bomb on a bunch of people in another country just because we think they "might" be terrorists or they are carrying guns or something seems a lot like murder to me.

Well that was a war chickie. A declared war. At end of a long war and in the interest of saving millions of american lives.

But let me ask you something. If we went to war with lets say I don't know Egypt. Or better yet Saudi Arabia. They send over terrorists and kill a bunch of Americans and attack us in every way possible.

We are murdering civilians in other countries with drone attacks because we think they are terrorists. Think.

In my view, the truth is the constitution isn't set up to deal with Terrorism. The problem is geographic boundaries don't pose the issues they used to when the fastest way from point "A" to "B" was with a horse or a camel.

That, and much of the liberal interpretation of the constitution. But, that's another story, and I don't have the time, nor even the inclination, to understand all the different definitions people have settled upon, such as "person," vs. "people," etc.

May I suggest to both Cook and chick (and anybody else who's interested) a book called "Hell to Pay", which lays out in ghastly and agonizing detail the estimates* for an over-the-beach invasion of the Japanese Home Islands, which did a lot to drive the dropping of the 2 bombs.

Cook is apparently a pacifist. This may be because he believes strongly in the 6th Commandment*--without exception--or perhaps he sympathizes with an old enemy.__________*I would greatly appreciate the opinion of anyone here regarding the Greek or Aramic verb used in that text.

"It was to the US troops who were facing the prospect of invading Japan."

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender. We dropped the bombs to provide an example to the Russians of our might rather than to defeat an already defeated enemy.

Generally speaking, yes, as all sane persons must be. However, in circumstances were we must fight to defend ourselves against potentially existential aggression by an attacking enemy, war might be justified.

We have not faced anything close to such justifiable aggression since WWII.

In the case of our invasion of Afghanistan and Iraq, we are the aggressors. (The men who destroyed the World Trade Center and attacked the Pentagon were stateless thugs and not an army from or representatives of Afghanistan.)

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender. We dropped the bombs to provide an example to the Russians of our might rather than to defeat an already defeated enemy.

Talk about a canard. The Japanese Imperial cabinet was deadlocked 3-3 on whether to continue the war after the Hiroshima bomb had been dropped and they'd assessed the damage. The Empperor, of course, broke the tie in favor of surrender. The notion that the cabinet would've surrendered if we'd just asked them nicely is pure leftist revisionism.

Cook, your revisionist history is just as false as Michelle's "new" bangs. If you were a true student of history you would know better than to regurgitate and/or parrot the canards of leftist historians. Don't be sophomoric--you embarrass yourself.

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender. We dropped the bombs to provide an example to the Russians of our might rather than to defeat an already defeated enemy.

Yes, they were so ready to surrender they ignored the demand made at the Potsdam Conference. It took a second bomb.

Actually they weren't essentially defeated either. They had almost a million troops in Japan while much of Asia was still under occupation.

Japan had numerous opportunties to surrender, particularly after Iwo Jima and Okinawa but they didn't. You might think they were defeated but they didnt.

Curtis LeMay - not a leftist historian - said that if the war had gone the other way, he and Norstad would have been prosecuted as war criminals.

Sometimes quoted as if he said this during the war, but the language is more from the early -fifties.

True enough, it is the generals on the losing side that get prosecuted.

Yes, LeMay absolutely would have been strung up if the other guys had won. Very honest of him to admit it publicly.

And while it's true that the US bombing campaign against Japan was monstrous both in conception and in execution, monstrous acts were required to win the war. Playing by civilized rules would've meant losing or fighting an endless stalemate in the Pscific, neither of which were acceptable options.

I do not think LeMay was "admitting" to anything. He was a warrior and just trying to get it through people's heads that war is indeed "hell."A serious wae results in the breakdown of all law and order. It is just a question of who will survive, so don't start one unless you are quite sure you will be the one left standing.

Pertinent to the start of this thread, is that Japan - and Germany - was in no position to retaliate against our terror bombing, while the various Islamist factions and organizations we are facing in this war are quite able to reply in kind as far as individual torture and assassinations go.

Are you being purposely dishonest or do you have serious reading comprehension skills? I never said defeating Japan was a war crime; I said dropping atom bombs on two civilian cities were unjustified and were, therefore, war crimes.

"Pertinent to the start of this thread, is that Japan - and Germany - was in no position to retaliate against our terror bombing, while the various Islamist factions and organizations we are facing in this war are quite able to reply in kind as far as individual torture and assassinations go."

What do you mean here?

Do you mean to suggest that the scattered Islamist terrorists are a greater threat to us than were Germany and Japan,(or even as great a threat)?

Neither. Japan attacked us at Pearl Harbor, and Hitler followed suit and declared war on us too.(Though our reason for giving priority to the European war was to prevent the Soviet Union from in fact becoming "Eurasia.")

I am saying that the 20th Air Corps could firebomb Japan and Hamburg without fear of retaliation in kind on the American homeland. That is not true for drone assassination attacks nor for torturing individuals of the opposing force caught in the open around the world.

The fact remains that the bombing of Germany and Japan happened in a declared war with the support of Congress and the American people. With congressional oversight and the press taking their role of questioning the necessity of those actions. Even in those days some people did not agree and asked questions.

Why is dropping the bomb on either Japanese city a war crime? Both were legitimate targets? We killed more in firebombings of Tokyo. The Japanese had dispersed their inductry into neighborhoods. You would have preferred US to force a surrender by invasion? You're complaint is against the Japanese government; especially after Hiroshima. And they had a coup the day before their announcement of surrender.

Why is dropping the bomb on either Japanese city a war crime? Both were legitimate targets? We killed more in firebombings of Tokyo. The Japanese had dispersed their inductry into neighborhoods. You would have preferred US to force a surrender by invasion? You're complaint is against the Japanese government; especially after Hiroshima. And they had a coup the day before their announcement of surrender.

Robert Cook said... "It was to the US troops who were facing the prospect of invading Japan."

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender. We dropped the bombs to provide an example to the Russians of our might rather than to defeat an already defeated enemy.

Even though we realize leftists are poseurs living in a fantasy world every once in a while they can still surprise you.

A canard. Japan was essentially already defeated and was reportedly ready to surrender.

In July of 1945. On the island of Kyushu alone there 790,000 home army troops at the ready for an invasion. They would face 550,000 Allied invasion forces. This does not include the civilian militia of at least another 750,000.The Japanese also had 2000 aircraft allocated to the Kyushu front. The planes and pilots mostly taken from Manchuria.

But let me ask you something. If we went to war with lets say I don't know Egypt. Or better yet Saudi Arabia. They send over terrorists and kill a bunch of Americans and attack us in every way possible.

Would we drop the big one on them?

Do you think we should?

This is what I think we should do. Prevention. The very simple answer is to develop our oil reserves here in the US. With recoverable reserves in excess of 5 times that of Saudi Arabia, we ought to get going. Then, when the Middle east goes up in flames, no problemo.

You could not create a system with a poll tax or where only certain voters were counted. And you can't create a system where, in effect, some people's votes count more than others. Matawan income tax preparation services